Some thoughts on Rush and Michael J. Fox
Apparently Rush suggested today that Michael J. Fox was either acting or deliberately off his Parkinson's meds when he made this commercial for Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. The origin of this speculation is reports of numerous interviews in which Fox is alleged to have admitted going off his meds in order to increase his tremors before testifying in front of congressional committees.
This story has many fascinating aspects to it. Predictably, liberal blogs ignore the issue of manipulation and deception, and castigate Rush. Those which even note the allegation of Fox having engaged in such a tactic before generally dismiss it on the ground that since the tremors are genuinely the result of Parkinson's, Fox's neglecting his medication for dramatic effect is somehow not manipulative. Interestingly, I have yet to see a liberal blogger or other commentator dispute the charges concerning Fox's having done precisely what Limbaugh suggests in the past.
I must admit that I should not be so credulous as to take those charges at face value, as I did in responding to a couple of such blog articles myself. Those interviews in which Fox allegedly admitted manipulating Congress need to be documented. But let there be no doubt about two things.
The first is that, any way you look at it, that ad is a cheap shot, an emotional appeal which deliberately ignores (as pro-stem cell propaganda usually does) the genuine ethical issues involved in recycling living human embryos for parts. And the second is that even though the tremors are indeed the natural result of Fox's disease, to exaggerate their practical impact upon him in order to increase the strength of that purely emotional appeal- if that is indeed what Fox has done- is about as manipulative as it gets.
ADDENDUM:
Fox actually mentions deliberately appearing before a Senate committee unmedicated- for effect- in his book.
Fox writes:
Limbaugh's mimicking of Fox's symptoms, as well as his quickly-withdrawn suggestion that Fox might have been deliberately exaggerating his symptoms, were disgusting and tasteless. But the question about whether Fox might have repeated a behavior he himself says that he engaged in previously is a perfectly reasonable one.
This story has many fascinating aspects to it. Predictably, liberal blogs ignore the issue of manipulation and deception, and castigate Rush. Those which even note the allegation of Fox having engaged in such a tactic before generally dismiss it on the ground that since the tremors are genuinely the result of Parkinson's, Fox's neglecting his medication for dramatic effect is somehow not manipulative. Interestingly, I have yet to see a liberal blogger or other commentator dispute the charges concerning Fox's having done precisely what Limbaugh suggests in the past.
I must admit that I should not be so credulous as to take those charges at face value, as I did in responding to a couple of such blog articles myself. Those interviews in which Fox allegedly admitted manipulating Congress need to be documented. But let there be no doubt about two things.
The first is that, any way you look at it, that ad is a cheap shot, an emotional appeal which deliberately ignores (as pro-stem cell propaganda usually does) the genuine ethical issues involved in recycling living human embryos for parts. And the second is that even though the tremors are indeed the natural result of Fox's disease, to exaggerate their practical impact upon him in order to increase the strength of that purely emotional appeal- if that is indeed what Fox has done- is about as manipulative as it gets.
ADDENDUM:
Fox actually mentions deliberately appearing before a Senate committee unmedicated- for effect- in his book.
Fox writes:
I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.
Limbaugh's mimicking of Fox's symptoms, as well as his quickly-withdrawn suggestion that Fox might have been deliberately exaggerating his symptoms, were disgusting and tasteless. But the question about whether Fox might have repeated a behavior he himself says that he engaged in previously is a perfectly reasonable one.
Comments
At least the Fox ad was a substantive, issue-driven message. The truth is, in thirty seconds you aren't going to convey anything deep and nuanced. What you are going to do is give a single, emotional snapshot that, ideally, is controversial enough that people go and talk about it across the country, spreading your message for free. In this, Fox has succeeded brilliantly.
I don't see any substance at all in the ad. All emotions; no substance. Like the Democratic "case" for the last several election cycles, BTW. Contrast this with the response ad, which I linked to in a previous post.
While I would not have done the "Call me" ad (which, of course, was not done by the RNC, and which Corker promptly disavowed, as you well know), the question of whether a person with Ford's lifestayle is an appropriate senator for the good people of Tennessee is something concerning which they are the best judges. Better Corker should crash Ford press conferences? And considering the insubstantial character assassination and outright slander that has characterized their opposition to George W. Bush last six years, the Democrats are upside down on "cheap shot" karma for at least a couple of administrations.
Granted that Fox's manipulative ad has garnered him lots of attention, it's a shame we can't have a substantive discussion of the ethical issues involved. Unfortunately, our side is the only one even trying to do that. The contrast between the Fox ad and the responding ad- again, if you you haven't seen it, it's linked to below- merely reinforces that point.
Yes, it is possible to "do" substance on this issue. It's too bad Fox chose not to try.